Did Jussie Smollett and Kim Foxx Just Make Filing a False Police Report Legal in Chicago?
In a scathing rebuke of Chicago State's Attorney Kim Foxx's office, Cook County Judge Marc Martin castigated prosecutors for trying to throw the book at a woman accused of the same crime — filing a false police report — that Jussie Smollett walked away from without penalty. "I’d like to know why Ms. Clark is being treated differently than Jussie Smollett. It’s a disorderly conduct case. A lot less egregious than Mr. Smollett’s case. I have a problem with it."
Fox News Chicago's Rafer Weigel revealed court transcripts on Twitter.
Judge Martin's withering tirade should not be missed in its entirety.
Ms. Clark is not a movie star, she doesn’t have a high-priced lawyer, although, her lawyer's very good. And this smells big time. I didn't create this mess, your office created this mess. And your explanation is unsatisfactory to this court. She's being treated differently. There’s no publicity on this case. She doesn't have Mark Geragos as her lawyer or Ron Safer or Judge Brown. It's not right. And I proceed in this matter, you're just digging yourselves further in a hole. Press gets ahold of this; it’ll be the newspaper.
It appears that the judge's castigation continues on another page, but the rest of the transcript has not been revealed yet. Kim Foxx's handling of the Jussie Smollett hoax — where he claimed he was assaulted by two white men screaming "MAGA COUNTRY" in the middle of a polar vortex — has caused a major scandal in Chicago. Worse than that, it now appears that by dropping all sixteen felony charges against Smollett, Foxx may have made it impossible to convict anyone else of the same crimes. From now on, expect every defense attorney to demand the same treatment that Smollett got, rendering the charges toothless.
In 1911, Gerard C. Brandon wrote about this troubling injustice of applying penalties unequally, which is a serious breach of due process, in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.
In practice the most fictitious of all our legal fictions is that which declares that all men are equal in the eyes of the law. Whether on account of the irony of fate or the blindness of justice the very technicalities and presumptions originally intended to place the poor, the friendless and the weak on a legal equality with the rich, the influential and the powerful, have been the most potent factors in destroying that equality-for it is the latter rather than the former who have been able to secure the benefits and advantages to be derived therefrom. If the accused be poor or friendless or without influence, he usually gets what the law is supposed to guarantee to all alike-and if guilty the jury, as a rule, so finds without delay and the court hastens to impose and inflict the penalty of the violated law. But, on the other hand, if the accused has money, friends, position or influence in his behalf the weight of all is brought to bear.
The nation has watched with increasing anger the unequal application of our laws when it comes to politically connected, famous, and powerful people. From Hillary Clinton's email crimes to Jussie's hoax, it's enough to make a person need an airsick bag to watch the news. Meanwhile, people like Ms. Clark would be thrown quietly into jail by the same people who let the rich and famous walk. Who will stop this? Perhaps Judge Martin will lead the way.